On June 9, 2013 respondent Apple Inc. filed a Motion For Stay requesting that the Commission stay enforcement of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order (the “Orders”) issued in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music And Data Processing Devices, And Tablet Computers, Investigation No. 337-TA-794 (“the 794 Investigation”). As reported elsewhere in this issue of King & Spalding’s ITC Section 337 Update, the Orders bar Apple from importing certain older iPhone and iPad models. Apple’s motion seeks a stay “to preserve the status quo until the Federal Circuit decides Apple’s appeal.” Apple contends that it can show a likelihood of success on appeal with respect to non-infringement of Samsung’s asserted ’348 patent, that Samsung failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, and that Samsung exhausted its patent rights through Samsung’s license to Intel. Apple also argues that the Federal Circuit is likely to reverse the Commission Orders because “the relief in question is not consistent with the public interest,” citing Commissioner Pinkert’s dissent in the Commission’s 794 Opinion. Apple argues that injunctive relief should not issue on the ’348 patent in light of Samsung’s FRAND commitment. Further, Apple argues that the public interest factors weigh in favor of a stay because immediate enforcement “risks serious harm to U.S. business,” threatens to “frustrate consumer preference,” and will harm innovation. Samsung’s Response and OUII’s Response filed yesterday oppose Apple’s motion.